INSIGHT: Bowling Alone in Urbanistaville
Is living in suburbia the social antidote?By Richard CarsonJune 24, 2008

Much has been
written in recent years about the negative impacts of “sprawl.” It is said to
increase traffic congestion, commute time, and air pollution. It gobbles up
agricultural lands and open space. It is also said to have serious social implications
like bowling alone.

The his book Bowling
Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community(2000), Robert D.
Putnam puts forward the hypothesis and research to say that today, we Americans sign fewer
petitions, belong to fewer organizations, know our neighbors less, meet with
friends less frequently, and even socialize with our families less often.
According to Putnam, we even bowl alone more. The author presents the
theoretical conclusion – and is the progenitor of the theory – that this new
loneliness may be caused, in part, by suburban sprawl. Let me be clear about
this. Putnam researched the hypothesis of a less involved nation and backs it
up with researched facts. But he did not research the possible reasons this may
be so.

Other
academic researchers, like Jan
Brueckner and Ann Largey, did investigate this hypothesis, and their research says just the
opposite is true. A major nationwide study done by these professors from Dublin
City University and the University of California (Social
Interaction and Urban Sprawl, CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1843,
November 2006) – of some 15,000 individuals in average urbanized-area and MSA (metropolitan
statistical areas)
populations – finds that:

“The frequency of interaction with
neighbors is lower in high-density census tracts.”

“Membership in hobby-oriented club
is less likely [in low-density tracts].”

“Group involvement tends to be
weaker [in low-density tracts].”

The
statistical revelation behind all of these findings is that for every 10%
increase in density, there is a 10% decrease in socialization. That’s a simple,
one-to-one inverse relationship that everyone can understand.

Of
course this scientifically researched revelation begs the question, “Why is
this so?” The authors of the study suggest that “crowding associated with a
dense environment might spur a need for privacy, causing people to draw inward.
Such behavior could reflect the old saying: ‘good fences make good neighbors.’”
The authors’ conclusion is that “density has been shown to exert a negative
influence on social interaction, undermining an important line of attack used
by critics of urban sprawl.” This may be an inconvenient truth for the New
Urbanist movement, but this negative view of density is hardly new. In fact, it
is one supported by such scientific legends as the late Carl Sagan and Ian
McHarg.

Carl Sagan and
Ann Druyan, in their book Shadows
of Forgotten Ancestors(1993), make a compelling argument that humans
are the result of 500 million years of DNA programming and the process of
natural selection. They say that when it comes to primates, "If
population density becomes too high, then mechanisms are set into motion to
reduce it." These forces may include, "...fighting and
domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, soaring infant and maternal
mortality; psychosis... gay bashing; alienation, social disorientation and
rootlessness..."

Ian McHarg, the
guru of ecological planning, in his book Design
With Nature (1969, 1995) talks about a "pathological
togetherness" whereas "density increases, so do social pressures,
which manifest themselves in stress disease..." He basically agrees
with Sagan and Druyan, and cites the same studies. He says the evolutionary
reason for this pathological behavior is that "stress inhibits
population growth." In other words, it’s nature′s way of fighting
increased density.

The
most interesting aspect of the research put forward by Brueckner and Largey is not that it finds suburban
sprawl innocent of the charge of creating loneliness in American society. What
is amazing is that the research finds just the opposite. People reported being more
civically engaged in suburbia! This fact has drawn a lot of criticism from the
New Urbanism devotees.

Robert Steutville, the publisher
of the New Urban News, wrote an editorial about
this research. In it, he took the apologist, rationalization that “New
urbanists advocate higher densities, but not increased socialization - rather
because it brings more activities within walking distance.” He then goes on
to say, “Theauthors manipulate the findings&hellip” and says that “Although
unproven, that may be partly true...”

Are we to believe that these
academic researchers manipulated the data? Or are we to believe the research
does not conform to the belief system of New Urbanism? The fact is that the Congress for the New Urbanism charter
says that they are “committed to reestablishingthe relationship
between the art of building and making of community...” Is not increased
socialization a key aspect of community-making? Without increased
socialization, are the New Urbanists promoting soulless place-making?

The researchers state that “social
interaction tends to be weaker, not stronger, in high-density census tracts.” Said
another way, could social interaction tend to be stronger, not weaker in
low-density census tracts? This counter argument interested me enough to
actually contact one of the authors of the study. When asked if this were not
so, researcher Jan Brueckner’s response was short and to the point: “Yes,
that’s exactly what the paper says.”

Putnam’s research shows that, as a
nation, we are becoming more individually isolated, and some of us may even be
bowling alone. However, the disease of rampant “sprawl” is not to blame.
Indeed, the question now is whether the problem is “urbanism.” Putnam’s
hypothesis puts forward some other possible reasons like the popularity of the Internet and
television, and the substitution of financial capital for social capital. But, I will leave these
assertions to some other university researchers to study and some other writers
to essay.

Richard Carson is a Pacific Northwest writer,
practicing planner, and doctorate student at Washington State University. A
collection of his essays are on the web at www.carsonessays.org.